Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braegarie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Braegarie

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Braegarie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a house in Scotland ...period. Absolutely no claims of notability, no SIGCOV at all. The picture shows a dam. Fails WP:NBUILD Rogermx (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - I've started calling my house 'Lavandula Manor'. May write an article about it someday.Hydromania (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Andrew Davidson, why did you de-PROD this article? The subject seems completely non-notable. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am a prod patroller and saw the topic listed at CAT:ALLPROD during a routine patrol. The title seemed to be Scottish and I am familiar with such topics. I checked it out, had no difficulty finding a detailed historical source, concluded that the topic had merit and so removed the prod as that's the process. Note that "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected." Editors should expect opposition in such cases. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Mind pointing us to this detailed historical source? Hydromania (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Lord Bolingbroke: Please note that any prodded article may be deprodded for any reason or none. See WP:DEPROD. Prodding should never be used unless an article is very clearly non-notable. The discussion here shows that this is not the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep When the article was first created, it was as "settlement", not an individual house. This source validates that it once was some kind of populated place ("his wife was from Braegarie") which would probably meet WP:GEOLAND. Another PDF document also refers to "the older settlements of Balintuim and Braegarie". So it indeed was once a settlement. I don't know if more sources can be found that would allow further growth of the article.

(I can't save the link to the second PDF because the url is blacklisted. I removed "https:" so I could save this edit - //www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=42&ved=2ahUKEwjpgYfa-OXkAhWKsZ4KHdiECG04KBAWMAF6BAgFEAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcairngorms.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2F07-Corriemulzie-rpt-H.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0Fpf73C0eok8FJq5-B1_tv) MB 03:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Solid point. I've gone ahead and changed it back to 'village', may as well discuss the actual subject. still not changing my vote though. Hydromania (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you find any evidence that Braegarie was ever legally recognized, as required by WP:GEOLAND? The only other source I found was this, which identifies Braegarie as a place "of three small farmhouses, each of which has suitable offices attached". – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

The above is no evidence that this is or was a settlement. Phrases such "his wife was from Braegarie" were used in relation to farms. The PDF document you refer to is presumably this which sources the statement ""the older settlements of Balintuim and Braegarie" to nothing more than the "OS First Edition (1867)", which in its labelling does not differentiate between a simple farm and a hamlet, so cannot be used to verify this claim.----Pontificalibus 10:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Merge to Places, place names, and structures on Mar Lodge Estate. A separate article is not supported by WP:GEOLAND as this is a populated place without legal recognition (or at least was in the past) and for which there aren’t sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG.Pontificalibus 06:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This is a named settlement and so passes WP:GEOLAND. This is a bleak part of the world and so the population is low but so it goes. We do not discriminate against rural areas and communities. Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • According to GEOLAND, there should be legal recognition of a place. If not, it goes on a case-by-case basis. If we can't determine what this place is or was, I doubt it is notable. Rogermx (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    • There doesn't seem to be any difficulty determining the nature of the place which seems quite legal and respectable. We have multiple sources showing that this was a named settlement of several households and so we're good. There was perhaps some confusion when it seemed that it was just a house but now that is resolved there is no case for deletion. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
      • It's common for farms to be subdivided between different tenant farmers, or have worker's cottages etc - that doesn't make them settlements. Even if we accept that this is a a settlement, there is no evidence it was legally recognised as such, so WP:GEOLAND would have us merge it in the absence of sources giving sufficient coverage to write an article.----Pontificalibus 16:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Braegarie was recorded as a separate place with multiple households in multiple censuses. That seems adequate as legal evidence. In any case, it up to those who want to make a change to justify it. I am content with the status quo – that we maintain the page – and can't see any benefit in chopping and changing it. The main issue here is deletion. It appears that we can now rule this out and so we're done. Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to the list, or to Corriemulzie. Peter James (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. If the house in question was originally a settlement that held a population, then it is perfectly suitable for Wikipedia to have an article on the topic. Even if the population in itself has diminished to just the occupants of a house, it is still a piece of land that qualifies for an article under WP:GEOLAND. Utopes (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Corriemulzie, where Braegarie is already mentioned, or to Places, place names, and structures on Mar Lodge Estate. While Wikipedia is supposed to function as a gazetteer, it is not an indiscriminate collection of place names or geographic features. WP:GEOLAND says that "populated, legally recognized places" are presumed to be notable, not that "all populated places with a name" are presumed to be notable. According to this source, Braegarie comprised three small farmhouses belonging to the Earl of Fife. I don't think that counts as a "legally recognized" settlement. GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition are evaluated against the general notability guideline, and I'm not seeing evidence that Braegarie passes GNG either. This seems like a clear-cut case for a merge. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

• The phrase "legally-recognised" is not defined but common sense indicates that it means that the place was recognised by the legal authorities; that it was not an ad hoc encampment or unauthorised squat. The proximity of this place to the main lodge of the Earl indicates that the tenancies were well recognised and legal and that everyone, including the national government, recognised this place as having a separate and distinct name for centuries. How is this not legal? Andrew D. (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

According to this "isolated dwellings" are regarded as settlements in the UK. Also "It should be noted that some small clusters of properties are classified neither as hamlets or villages. These include traditional rural settlement forms such as isolated farmsteads with or without additional dwellings..." This would suggest that named farms satisfy WP:GEOLAND. ----Pontificalibus 12:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. It was clearly once a recognised settlement, so is notable per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.